Appeal No. 97-1476 Page 6
Application No. 08/458,689
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness issue
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the
metes and bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530
F.2d 956, 958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner determined (answer, p. 3) that
[i]n claims 11-13, the references to "said receptacle"
and the positive recitation of a structural limitation
associated therewith (in this case, a wick) is confusing
in that the preamble of each claim is directed to a
"hanging plant container apparatus" and not a combination
of an apparatus and a receptacle per se. . . . It is not
clear whether Applicant is attempting to claim the
combination or merely the subcombination.
We do not agree. As correctly pointed out by the
appellant (brief, pp. 4-5), claims 1-10 are clearly directly
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007